news

Differences in remdesivir efficacy due to trial variances, not drug, report says

7
SHARES

After remdesivir showed little effect against COVID-19 in the SOLIDARITY trial, a new report has suggested this is due to the structure of the study.

Remdesivir

According to a new report, the variances in efficacy between clinical trials of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 are due to the differences in the studies, not because of the drug. The report, from Globaldata, says that one of the surprising notes around the interim results of the Phase II/III SOLIDARITY trial for COVID-19 is that remdesivir showed little to no effect. Having shown positive results in previous trials and being the only drug candidate within the trial to be approved for treatment, it was expected to show a much stronger response. 

 

ACCESS your FREE COPY

 


This report addresses the key factors shaping pharmaceutical formulation, including regulation, QC and analysis.

Access the full report now to discover the techniques, tools and innovations that are transforming pharmaceutical formulation, and learn how to position your organisation for long-term success.

What you’ll discover:

  • Key trends shaping the pharmaceutical formulation sector
  • Innovations leading progress in pharmaceutical formulation and how senior professionals can harness their benefits
  • Considerations and best practices when utilising QbD during formulation of oral solid dosage forms
  • And more!

Don’t miss your chance to access this exclusive report ! Access now – it’s free

Scotty Chung-Siu, Pharma Analyst at GlobalData, commented: “The results for the SOLIDARITY trial were not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, unlike the previous remdesivir trial by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) that found positive results for patients, the SOLIDARITY trial did not have a placebo arm – nor was it double-blinded. Finally, it is not clear how sick patients in the SOLIDARITY trial were when they were hospitalised and because of the variation of healthcare systems in different countries, the criteria for hospitalising patients may have differed.”

The SOLIDARITY trial enrolled patients from March to October and during this time the standard-of-care changed greatly, the report says. Early on, patients were put on ventilators much faster, whereas now there are studies that have found ventilation in some cases worsens symptoms.

Chung-Siu concluded: “While these results are discouraging for finding a magic bullet for COVID-19, the SOLIDARITY trial did show that large-scale international trials are possible during a pandemic with the possibility of drawing conclusions at a rapid pace, as soon as six months. In fact, global clinical trials that were delayed or prevented due to the impact of COVID-19 are returning. The numbers of resumed clinical trials have raised over 800 total trials with telemedicine being one of the main aspects that has been used to overcome these challenges.”

Share via
Share via